Guizar v. Woodford et al

Filing 90

ORDER GRANTING 81 DEFENDANTS JAMES AND WOHLWEND'S MOTION TO DISMISS; DISMISSING UNSERVED DEFENDANT COZIAHR; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 1, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15
16
17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
J. WOODFORD, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
____________________________)
FERNANDO GUIZAR,

No. C 05-0557 MMC (PR)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
JAMES AND WOHLWEND’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DISMISSING UNSERVED
DEFENDANT COZIAHR; DIRECTIONS
TO CLERK
(Docket No. 81)

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On February 7, 2005, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at
Corcoran State Prison (“Corcoran”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the Court is defendants James
and Wohlwend’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, on the ground plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion and defendants have filed a reply.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The instant action has a lengthy procedural history. As noted, plaintiff filed the action
on February 7, 2005. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that prison officials at Salinas Valley
State Prison (“SVSP”), where plaintiff was incarcerated from July 18, 1996 to March 31,

1

1999, violated his constitutional rights by placing him in administrative segregation and,

2

eventually, the secured housing unit (“SHU”), after he was validated as a gang member.1 In

3

its Order of Partial Dismissal and Service, filed July 26, 2005, the Court found the complaint,

4

liberally construed, stated cognizable claims, and ordered the complaint served upon twelve

5

defendants.2 (Docket No. 3.)

6

Initially, the United States Marshal successfully served seven defendants, specifically,

7

defendants Alameida, Alexander, Godfrey, Harris, Tingey, Virrueta and Woodford, and those

8

defendants jointly filed a motion for summary judgment. In its Order Denying Defendants’

9

Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 27, 2007, the Court (1) denied summary

10

judgment on plaintiff’s claim that he had been denied an adequate opportunity to present his

11

views to the prison officials charged with deciding whether to place and retain him in

12

administrative segregation, (2) denied summary judgment to supervisorial defendants

13

Woodford and Alameida on plaintiff’s claim that said defendants had failed to adequately

14

train and supervise the prison officials who made the decisions to place and retain plaintiff in

15

administrative segregation, and (3) denied qualified immunity to all defendants. (Docket No.

16

31.)

17

By that same order, the Court further directed plaintiff to, within thirty days, either

18

effectuate service on, or provide the Court with a current address for, the five unserved

19

defendants, specifically, Coziahr, Basso, Wohlwend, Pottieger and James, and informed

20

plaintiff that a failure to do so would result in dismissal of his claims against those

21

defendants without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

22

Additionally, by said order, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for

23

the purpose of conducting, within forty-five days, mediation proceedings pursuant to the Pro

24

Se Prisoner Mediation Program.

25
26
27

1

As secured housing is a category of administrative segregation, the Court, for ease of
reference, refers herein to both as “administrative segregation.”
2

28

Claims against two other defendants, J. Marshall and H. McEnroe, were dismissed
for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
2

1

Thereafter, the served defendants filed a notice of appeal of the order denying their

2

motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. Following said appeal, the

3

Court granted defendants’ request to stay all proceedings pending a decision by the Ninth

4

Circuit, and vacated the referral to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program, as well as the

5

deadline for plaintiff either to serve or provide the location of the unserved defendants.

6

(Docket No. 40.)

7

The Ninth Circuit, in a Memorandum order filed June 11, 2008, reversed the Court’s

8

denial of qualified immunity with respect to defendant Virrueta. (Docket No. 44.) The Ninth

9

Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity with respect to defendants Alameida,

10

Alexander, Godfrey, Harris, Tingey and Woodford, finding a triable issue of fact existed as

11

to whether plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to present his views to the prison officials

12

who had decided to place and retain him in administrative segregation, and the matter was

13

remanded to this Court for further proceedings. (Id.) On remand, those six defendants filed a

14

motion to dismiss the claims against them, on the ground plaintiff had failed to exhaust his

15

administrative remedies with respect thereto.

16

By order filed February 8, 2010, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. (Docket

17

No. 59.) By that same order, the Court reinstated its prior directive that plaintiff, to avoid

18

dismissal of the five unserved defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m), either himself effectuate

19

service on them within thirty days or, within that same time period, provide the Court with a

20

current address for them.

21

On February 22, 2010, plaintiff sent a letter to the Court providing service addresses

22

for three of the five unserved defendants, specifically, defendants Coziahr, James, and

23

Wohlwend. On May 21, 2010, the Court dismissed defendants Basso and Pottieger without

24

prejudice, and directed the United States Marshal to re-issue summons for defendants

25

Coziahr, James, and Wohlwend. (Docket No. 70.) As of the date of this order, defendant

26

Coziahr has not been served. Defendants James and Wohlwend have been served, and, as

27

noted, their motion to dismiss is before the Court.

28
3

DISCUSSION

1
2

A.

Motion to Dismiss

3

Defendants James and Wohlwend (hereinafter “defendants”) move to dismiss

4

plaintiff’s claims on the ground plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as

5

is required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e). Defendants argue dismissal is proper for the same

6

reasons the Court granted dismissal of the seven originally served defendants in its order of

7

February 8, 2010. The Court agrees.

8

Plaintiff exhausted only one administrative appeal while at SVSP, Inmate Appeal

9

SVSP-A-98-00482. (Decl. N. Grannis in Supp. Mot. Dismiss, Docket No. 51, at ¶¶ 5-6, Ex.

10

A.) In it’s order of February 8, 2010, the Court analyzed the appeal and found it addressed

11

only one issue: the prison’s failure to schedule a timely hearing. (Docket No. 59 at 12.)

12

Plaintiff did not allege in the administrative appeal that he was denied an opportunity to

13

present his views, and prison officials responding to the appeal did not address that issue.

14

(See id. at 9-11.) Thus, plaintiff did not exhaust the sole cognizable claim in this case,

15

specifically, his claim that he was denied the opportunity to present his views to officials

16

charged with his placement in administrative segregation.3

17

Plaintiff makes no showing as to how the analysis supporting the Court’s February 8,

18

2010 order of dismissal applies any differently to defendants James and Wohlwend, and, to

19

the extent plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding his claims against

20

them, the Court finds said two defendants are similarly situated to the defendants dismissed

21

in said order. Accordingly, defendants James and Wohlwend’s motion to dismiss will be

22

granted.

23
24
25
3

As explained in the Court’s February 8, 2010 order, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires a
prisoner-plaintiff to present his claims to each level of administrative review before raising
the claims in a § 1983 action in federal court. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84-85
27 (2006). In order to properly exhaust administrative remedies under § 1997e(a), the grievance
must contain factual detail sufficient to put prison officials on notice of the specific nature of
28 the inmate’s claim. Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009).
26

4

1
2

B.

Unserved Defendant Coziahr
Two attempts to serve defendant Coziahr have been unsuccessful, and plaintiff has

3

been unable to provide a current address for said defendant. Accordingly, defendant Coziahr

4

will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

5

Procedure.

6

CONCLUSION

7

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

8

1. Defendants James and Wohlwend’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

9

2. Defendant Coziahr is hereby DISMISSED from this action without prejudice under

10
11

Rule 4(m).
3. Because the unexhausted claims have been dismissed, and the unserved defendants

12

have been dismissed, there is nothing remaining to adjudicate in this action. The action is

13

therefore DISMISSED.

14

4. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

15

This order terminates Docket No. 81.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

DATED: December 1, 2011
_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5